dungeondefendersfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Viperus.oblivion
Welcome Hi, welcome to Dungeon Defenders Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Boss Rewards(PC) page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Jetah (Talk) 15:52, October 30, 2011 You may contact Finally(RighteousRage) or Jetah with any questions. Ask LtEarth for anything related to formatting! = Finally = 04:39, August 1, 2011 (UTC) Awesome I just wanted to you know you are awesome. All this work I didn't have to do! Yay for other people editing! Crimsoncoder 12:23, November 3, 2011 (UTC) : Since you're here and at least currently active, what do you think we should do about the weapon pages such as Weapons, Apprentice Weapons, Staff, and Monk Weapons? They are a mess. I'm not sure quite what format to go with, though. Leave the current pages and put a bunch of links into all of them? Remove some sections such as the specific weapon type and put everything under the hero type? Should the pages be a list of links to the "weapon pages" such as Soul Focuser and if so, should we make "weapon pages" for the basic types of weapons that aren't special? : Crimsoncoder 12:46, November 3, 2011 (UTC) LtEarth hasn't minded me changing templates so long as they look OK and I drop him/her a message about it. Yeah, I saw that! Looks good so far. I'm testing out changes to the weapon template right now so that the individual weapons don't take up so much space. Not sure if we'll use it, but I might as well look into changing it. I forget where it was, but somewhere they listed what they wanted was a bunch of tables of the items, so making the weapon template much smaller would help accomplish that. --14:11, November 3, 2011 (UTC) ---- well, we probably should have a list of all of them (by type), even if it is just a series of links because I don't know about you, if I went to a page about Huntress Weapons I expect to find them all there! But I agree, a list using the template would probably be a bit overkill. Appologies for being so curt at the start. I was looking at the Squire Weapons category as a example and guide, and wasn't quite sure we really needed the contents of the pages related just dumped into the category page, when people would be using Category to go to the sections containing the proper items anyway (For example, the pages with Crossbow and Bows, Guns, the special weapons, etc.). It makes some sence, right? Gratuitous Lurking Ok, so here is what I have so far on the template used on pages such as Bows (with the example of what that page looks like with it): User:Crimsoncoder/Sandbox Let me know what you think, including if it is too big, need more/less information, etc Crimsoncoder 12:50, November 4, 2011 (UTC) Category namespace Category articles aren't supposed to contain much content. Is there a reason you wanted to move the content of Squire Weapons to Category:Squire Weapons? —Shidou T/ 18:22, November 4, 2011 (UTC) : I believe he was trying to remove duplicate pages based on comments. Category:Huntress Weapons was changed as well. I know there were a few people working on that one/the pages it displays. : GAH just failed and added this to namespace instead of linking. : Crimsoncoder 18:28, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :: Yeah, Category:Huntress Weapons shouldn't have any content. It's not immediately obvious to me which version should be kept. Can you guys figure it out, put the preferred version into Huntress Weapons and then empty out the category page? —Shidou T/ 18:35, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::: Th reason I did it is because the menu links point to Category: Weapons, and we cant change that (admins can). No matter how much better you claim the non category page is, that isnt worth much if nobody ever sees it. Also, there is no downside to category page having content as far as I know. ::: Viperus.oblivion 07:20, November 5, 2011 (UTC) :::: Okay, carry on, I'll check with the other admins. The downside is it would cause a large amount of redundant content to be shown on the same page, it violates the point of having different namespaces and therefore deviates from the standards of almost every other MediaWiki site that's in good condition. —Shidou T/ 07:51, November 5, 2011 (UTC) ::::: Actually, it will not create that much rednundant contennt since it contains a few words, and a bunch of templates, meaning the CSS will download the template once, and reuse it 50 times. However, I did find a flaw in my plan. You cant comment in category pages. Meaning we really should make admins change the menu links. BTW I added the new template, sue me XD http://dungeondefenders.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Huntress_Weapons ::::: Viperus.oblivion 08:34, November 5, 2011 (UTC) :::::: Templates have nothing to do with the amount of redundancy on a page at the reader's level, CSS is a style sheet language so it makes no sense to say it "downloads the template", and at the data transfer level templates make no difference. The problem is the fact that making a manual list of items on a page that already has a list of those items would cause each item to be listed twice on the same page. Anyway, Ltearth decided to change the menu links. —Shidou T/ 10:23, November 6, 2011 (UTC)